1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

SOSAIA HAVEA,

7 Case No. 25-cv-09453-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

10 INVESTIGATION, 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Sosaia Havea, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court granted 15 their application. See Docket No. 5. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s 16 complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint 17 does not appear to plausibly state a claim, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 18 complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may file either an amended complaint or a response 19 to this order addressing why their complaint is sufficient, no later than January 30, 2026. The 20 Case Management Conference set for February 4, 2026 is vacated. 21 II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1 22 Plaintiff has filed a form complaint naming the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) 23 and Sanjay Vermani, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s San Francisco office, as defendants. 24 Plaintiff asserts that there is federal jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question, 25 alleging that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 242. Plaintiff alleges that they submitted tips to the 26 1 Because the factual allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint are generally taken as true in the context 27 of determining whether the complaint states a claim, this section summarizes Plaintiff’s 1 FBI on four occasions in 2025 related to events that occurred in 2017 in Mississippi and in 2018 in 2 San Francisco, “with the intention of beginning an investigation but no one ever called [them] 3 back.” Compl. at 4. As to the 2017 events, Plaintiff alleges the following: 4 [I]n 2017 [I] was working as a truck driver when two McComb Mississippi sheriff GREG SMITH and BRET HARPER planted 5 evidence on me and failed to arrest. at trial the judge told me to kill myself several times and suspended the trial when [I] retaliated. 6 7 Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges as to the 2018 events: 8 [I]n 2018 a hospital judge also told me to kill myself several times. I asked him if [I] was at the center of a government conspiracy he said 9 “you are.” [T]hen I asked him if my families lives were in danger he said "they are." the judge told me to kill myself in front of a staff 10 member who, [I] believe, reported him. [I] think he may have been fired. 11 12 Id. Plaintiff alleges that they needed the FBI to investigate these events because they “wanted to 13 apply for California victims compensation but [their] psychiatrist refuses to certify that [their] 14 condition resulted from the qualifying crimes without proof of the CalVCB qualifying incidents.” 15 Id. 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 18 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 20 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 22 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 23 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 24 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 25 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 26 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 27 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of 1 moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 2 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 3 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 4 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 5 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 6 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 7 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 8 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 10 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the 11 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 12 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 13 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by 14 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 15 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 16 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 17 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 18 litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 19 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 20 will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 21 Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 22 B. 18 U.S.C. § 242 23 It appears Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which provides, 24 in relevant part, as follows: 25 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, 26 Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the 27 Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 one year, or both[.] 2 18 U.S.C. § 242. This claim fails and cannot be cured because it is based on a provision of the 3 federal criminal code and Plaintiff, who is a private citizen, does not have standing to assert such a 4 claim. See Lasko v. Am. Bd. of Surgery, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1136 (D. Nev. 2014) (dismissing 5 civil rights claim asserted under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 242 on the basis that this provision 6 “create[s] [a] criminal violation[ ], . . . . and [is] not [a] statute[ ] under which a private citizen 7 may bring a civil action; only the federal government may prosecute crimes under [this] Title 18 8 provision”), order vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration sub nom. Lasko v. Am. Bd. 9 of Internal Med., 92 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Nev. 2015).2 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 12 should not be dismissed on the basis that they fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may respond by filing 13 either an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies discussed above or a response that 14 addresses why their current complaint is sufficient. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed by January 15 30, 2026. If Plaintiff does not file a response by that date, the case will be reassigned to a United 16 States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 18 Any amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 19 and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended 20 complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, any amended complaint may not 21 incorporate claims or allegations of Plaintiff’s original complaint by reference, but instead must 22 include all of the facts and claims Plaintiff wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to 23

24 2 The Court also notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a claim for compensation under the California Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810, et seq., that statute requires that a 25 claim must be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. See Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2. Therefore, it 26 is likely that by 2025, when Plaintiff asked the FBI to investigate the events of 2017 and 2018, any claim for compensation would have been untimely. In addition, it appears that the alleged 27 perpetrators of the 2017 events, which occurred in Mississippi, are not California governmental 1 sue. 2 Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 3 || Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 4 || for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 5 floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in 6 || Room 470S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments, which are 7 currently being conducted by telephone or video-conference, can be made by calling (415) 782- 8 8982 or emailing federalprobonoproject @ sfbar.org. Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can 9 || provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: December 30, 2025

4 JQSEPH C. SPERO nited States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28